United States v. STILE
1:11-cr-00185
| D. Me. | Nov 20, 2017Background
- On Sept. 12, 2011 James Stile robbed a pharmacy at gunpoint, taking controlled substances and cash; he pled guilty and was sentenced May 29, 2015.
- The Court’s judgment ordered $13,306.93 in restitution (payable immediately), a $100 special assessment, 120 months imprisonment, and five years supervised release.
- At sentencing Stile did not object to the restitution amount and the PSR reflected his limited assets and earning capacity.
- While incarcerated Stile initially made small IFRP payments, later refused participation and was placed on “Refuse” status; he now challenges the Court’s restitution payment schedule.
- The Government produced evidence that the victim’s insurer, Hanover, reimbursed the pharmacy $12,306.91 and the pharmacy absorbed a $1,000.02 deductible.
- The Court denied Stile’s motion to set a different restitution schedule, retained its restitution amount, and ordered priority: $1,000.02 to the pharmacy first, then $12,306.91 to Hanover (after the Government supplies insurer contact info).
Issues
| Issue | Stile’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing court unlawfully delegated setting restitution payment schedule to BOP/Probation | Court should have set an installment schedule at sentencing; cannot delegate to BOP/Probation | Court ordered restitution "due immediately," retained review authority; BOP collection via IFRP is not an unlawful delegation | No improper delegation; judgment ordering immediate payment and reservation of judicial review is sufficient |
| Whether the court failed to consider Stile’s financial ability when ordering restitution | Court ignored ability to pay; should have tailored schedule or waived while incarcerated | PSR and sentencing record show Court considered assets, declined a fine, waived interest, and imposed supervised release to secure payment | Court considered financial circumstances; restitution order stands |
| Whether insurer reimbursement alters restitution beneficiaries or amount | Insurer is not a "victim" and should not receive restitution; Stile owes only pharmacy deductible (~$1,000) | 18 U.S.C. § 3664(j)(1) requires restitution be paid to the payer of compensation and that victims be paid first | Court ordered priorities: first $1,000.02 to pharmacy, then $12,306.91 to Hanover (insurer) with credit for prior payments |
| Proper procedural vehicle / relief sought by Stile (challenge to IFRP sanctions or judgment) | Seeks the Court to set a different payment schedule and to suspend payments during incarceration | Challenge to BOP IFRP must be brought by habeas (28 U.S.C. § 2241) in custodian district; collateral attack on judgment is untimely after direct appeal | Court refused to entertain BOP-IFRP challenge here; denied motion to reset judgment schedule; directed Govt. to provide insurer details for amended judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Merric, 166 F.3d 406 (1st Cir.) (district court must retain final authority over payment matters)
- United States v. Rowe, 268 F.3d 34 (1st Cir.) (lack of present assets does not preclude future payment obligations)
- United States v. Morán-Calderón, 780 F.3d 50 (1st Cir.) (district court should explicitly reserve authority over payment schedule)
- Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir.) (discussing BOP authority to collect restitution)
- Leftwich v. United States, 628 F.3d 665 (4th Cir.) (court must be careful about delegating restitution scheduling)
- Gunning v. United States, 339 F.3d 948 (9th Cir.) (related authority on supervision/BOP collection)
- Gunning v. United States (Gunning II), 401 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir.) (continued treatment of restitution collection issues)
- United States v. Bailey, 975 F.2d 1028 (4th Cir.) (courts should not order restitution without an informed ability-to-pay determination)
- United States v. Mitchell, 893 F.2d 935 (8th Cir.) (similar ability-to-pay principle)